Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Monday he will push to change Senate rules and curtail some Republican filibusters next year, setting up a major test of collegiality and power politics in the usually chummy chamber that bills itself as the worlds most exclusive club.

Republicans said that if Mr. Reid goes ahead, hell not only ruin the unique nature of the Senate, but hell poison chances for bipartisan cooperation just as members of the next Congress are taking their seats in January.

The back-and-forth spilled over onto the Senate floor Monday, with Mr. Reid facing off against Sen. Mitch McConnell, the chambers top Republican, in a rare and acrid head-to-head debate.

This is no exaggeration. What these Democrats have in mind is a fundamental change to the way the Senate operates, for the purposes of consolidating their own power, the Kentucky Republican said. In the name of efficiency, they would prevent the very possibility of compromise and threaten to make the disputes of the past few years look like mere pillow fights.

The fight is not only about the filibuster, but the way the Senate writes all of its rules  of which the filibuster is just one example.

But that's the Dem plan. The faster they destroy the country, the faster they can impose dictatorial rule in picking-up the pieces. With Obama's Marching Morons there will be public support for whatever Obama decrees.

If the 17th amendment was repealed, the Senate would be solidly Republican right now. It used to be that Governors appointed Senators to sit in DC to represent the interest of the state. Now they’re “popularly elected” which simply makes it easier to defraud the federal elections.

12
posted on 11/27/2012 6:57:51 AM PST
by rarestia
(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)

Wishful thinking. We been through two election cycles where the Republicans should have captured the Senate. A combination of poor candidates and candidate gaffes kept Harry Reid in place. Why would we believe 2014 will be any different? Is GOP suddenly going to get smart in its candidate selection? Are candidates going to get smart and refuse to take the bait when talking to the media? Somehow I think not.

Looking at my own state of North Carolina, Democrat Senator Kay Hagan should be vulnerable in 2014. She is very ambitious and votes almost 100% with the party elite as instructed by her mentor Chuck Schumer. The Republicans should already have a candidate in waiting to pick off this seat, just as the GOP should have beaten Bill Nelson in Florida. However, if the party waits until 2014 to select a candidate and start campaigning, Kay will be going back to Washington in January 2015.

It used to be that Governors appointed Senators to sit in DC to represent the interest of the state.

Actually, it was the state legislatures. The federal senator was originally the envoy of the legislature of his state, with the job of protecting the power of his state's government against federal usurpation.

16
posted on 11/27/2012 7:07:33 AM PST
by PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)

“I hope he scraps it, we will own the Senate again some day and it will be VERY handy not to have to deal with this then.”

Do you reallly believe that these rule changes will not be unmade during a lame duck right before republicans take over? And media outrage will occur if the new republicans try to put them back, causing the new republicans to cave?

18
posted on 11/27/2012 7:26:18 AM PST
by dsrtsage
(One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)

Myth: The filibuster is necessary to maintain the checks and balances of our democratic system.

Truth: Checks and balances refer to the separation-of-powers doctrine between government branches (executive, legislative and judicial), not the Senates balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. In this case, the president nominates judges, and the balance on that prerogative is the Senates advice and consent by an up-or-down, majority vote. The presidents ability to appoint new judges (executive branch check) and impeachment (legislative branch check) balances the governments judicial branch.

Democrats want to abuse a Senate procedural rule8 to, in effect, rewrite the Constitutions advice and consent clause, requiring a supermajority (three-fifths vote) to approve nominees. The Constitution defines where a supermajority vote is required (treaties, veto overrides, etc.). No such requirement is required for advice and consent. The Senates authority to write its own procedural rules cannot conflict with the Constitutions substantive requirements.

If the filibuster were vital to the concept of checks and balances, then the House of Representatives also would have a three-fifths-vote cloture rule, which it does not. A simple majority can end debate and bring a matter to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Transcript courtesy of Human Events BR> Barack Obama 4/25/05: The President hasnt gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and thats just not what the founders intended.BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there just werent very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but thats a bridge too far we cant go there. You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.BR> Barack Obama 4/25/05: The President hasnt gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and thats just not what the founders intended.BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there just werent very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but thats a bridge too far we cant go there. You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.BR> Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you dont get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing its almost a temper tantrum. BR> Harry Reid 5/18/2005: Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government. BR> Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation. BR> Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. BR> Harry Reid 5/18/2005: But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration. BR> Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: Ive never passed a single bill worth talking about that didnt have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I dont know of a single piece of legislation thats ever been adopted here that didnt have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. Thats because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. Thats why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority. BR> Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power. BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: Youve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like its a little less than efficient -- well thats right it is. And deliberately designed to be so. BR> Joe Biden 5/23/05: I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you wont own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. BR> Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way. BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President. BR> Max Baucus 5/19/2005: This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel. We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you dont get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing its almost a temper tantrum. BR> Harry Reid 5/18/2005: Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government. BR> Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation. BR> Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. BR> Harry Reid 5/18/2005: But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration. BR> Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: Ive never passed a single bill worth talking about that didnt have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I dont know of a single piece of legislation thats ever been adopted here that didnt have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. Thats because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. Thats why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority. BR> Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power. BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: Youve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like its a little less than efficient -- well thats right it is. And deliberately designed to be so. BR> Joe Biden 5/23/05: I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you wont own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. CBR> harles Schumer 5/23/2005: They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way. BR> Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President. BR> Max Baucus 5/19/2005: This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel. BR>http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-were-against-reconciliation-nuclear-option-before-they-were-for-it BR> THE HYPOCRISY IS DEAFENING.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.